For some reason, which now eludes me, I had the impression that this
forum was populated by highly skilled scientists and engineers - people
that one normally associates with critical thinking and analysis of
 hard facts.  But maybe everybody needs a break once and a while, and
needs to just engage in a little cocktail party conversation - you know
- "B.S."  'Cause that is what has been coming out of this forum for the
last couple days.

Jim Speakman blasts the U.S. and the capitalist system "I think that we
are all very well aware of the cavalier approach of the
US to the effects of pollution." Well, Jim, I am not aware of that so
please provide me with the evidence to support that remarkable
statement. As an American who has to live under a host of very
burdensome and expensive environemental regualtions and one that has
travelled a fair piece around this country I would hardly call our
goverment's approach to the environment as cavalier. In fact, I think
this is a pretty, damned clean country.  But that is just my humble
opinion, and once Jim gives us the data, we can make informed decisions.

Jim says in a later posting "the fact remains that the US is, de facto,
the principal polluter of this fair planet, and its government is not,
IMHO, doing enough."
Could you be so kind as to give us the facts (not humble opinions) to
support that claim.  By the way, just what sort of pollution are you
talking about?  I know everyone likes to toss out that statistic about
the U.S. having only 6% of the world's population, but it consumes 33%
(or some equally irrelevant figure) of the world's energy (is CO2 really
a pollutant?).  Would the world be better off if the U.S. only consumed
6% of the world's energy?  12%? 18%?  Just what is the U.S.'s proper and
fair share of energy consumption?  Just who or what in the world would
be better off  if the U.S. consumption dropped to such egalitarian levels?

As long as we are talking about Kyoto (which is really what this is all
about, isn't it?)...  As we all know China is exempt from Kyoto.  Let's
say that China consumed a percentage of the world's energy consistent
with the size of its population? Would that make everyone happy?  Well,
we're all gonna have a chance to find out soon enough. Although China is
still among the developing countries with a relatively low per capita
income, it has experienced tremendous economic growth since the late
1970s.  In a recent report from the Asian Development Bank, China's
growth rate for the coming years is predicted to be 8.5 % and above.
According to economists at Lehman Brothers, if this growth is sustained,
"...China's economy by 2030 will be bigger than each of the major
European economies and could conceivably displace Japan to become the
largest economy in Asia, and the world's second largest economy after
the US...."

China is one of the world's major mineral-producing countries. Coal is
the most abundant mineral (China ranks first in the world in coal
production).  Oil fields discovered since the 1960s made China a net
exporter, and by the early 1990s, China was the world's fifth-ranked oil
producer. Growing domestic demand beginning in the mid-1990s, however,
has forced the nation to import increasing quantities of petroleum. Coal
is the single most important energy source; coal-fired thermal electric
generators provide over 70% of the country's electric power. China also
has extensive hydroelectric energy potential (but that would mean
damming rivers - not good for the environment). So what will China's CO2
emissions look like in a few years? Coal is particularly dirty, and do
you think they are going to be putting expensive scrubbers on their
smoke stacks to reduce emissions? I am will ing to wager that they
won't. What will that do to Kyoto?  Then the U.S. will no longer be
consuming 33% of the world's energy. Will the world be better off then?

Jim also says:
"The recent arguments that are being put forward by some elements of
this forum appear to be grasping at evidential 'straws' that disposing
of vast quantities of electrical equipment within landfill sites is
somehow 'not a problem', and that recovery, re-use and recycling is not
a cost-effective solution.  Well, I firmly believe that it is a problem,
and whether recovery, re-use and recycling is cost effective or not,
design of equipment should be geared towards making those options
feasible, and it should be done."

I am anxious to see the data upon which Jim has formulated his belief
that landfills are a problem. Of course, I guess we will first have to
define exactly what the "problem" is.  If the problem is that virgin
material has to be mined - OK. But what are the real costs of recycling
vs. mining. If it would be more economical to mine virgin materials,
then by mandating inefficient recycling you are diverting resources from
some other activity.  Just what are you willing to sacrifice for the
sake of recycling?  If putting materials into the ground is creating a
health problem for humans and other living things - first, let's see the
data that supports that and then let's consider the alternatives. If
putting WEEE into landfills results directly in 100,000 deaths per
year,  what if the cost of eliminating that diverts resources from other
activites - which then results in 200,000 deaths per year because we
could no longer pursue that activity.  This is not mere mind games or
sillly little academic exercises. Consider the banning of DDT.  Before
it was banned, malaria was all but eliminated as a disease. Since the
ban malaria has claimed the lives of millions - almost exclusively in
the third world, impoverished nations.  The rich nations could afford
the more expensive alternatives.  I'm am not here going to debate the
pros and cons of banning DDT (although I am more than happy to do so at
another time and in another forum) but the truth of the matter is that
banning it carried a terrible human price tag.  Some will say that is
OK,  it was OK to sacrifice those people  in order to gain some other
benefit somewhere else. Let us just be cognizant of the fact that these
decisions to have human consequences.

As soon as Jim comes up with some real data to back up his claims I will
be more than happy to look at it and respond. Keep in mind, I am not
disputing the truth of Jim's claims, I am merely saying I would like to
look at the same data that Jim has looked at so that I can make up my
own mind.

Brian Ellis says:
"As for the economics of WEEE recycling, it is break-even or positive in
Europe, so why isn't it in the USA?"

Brian, can you please refer us to the studies you have researched that
show that WEEE recycling in Europe is at a break even point? I recall
reading articles in British periodicals about the concerns that the
British had about old refrigerators being discarded all over the
countryside because the recycling infrastructure simply did not exist.
Of course, I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the
newspapers, so it all could have been bogus. However, I am highly
skeptical of many surveys about costs and benefits of this or that
activity, because they often don't count all the costs or they ignore
subsidies or hidden transfer payments.  So let's look at the data. Once
we are given the references that support that claim then we will be able
to analyse the data and see if  it really is a break even proposition in
Europe.

Chris James says:
"In most environmental issues you need to look well into the future.
There are no short terms gains or benefits from WEEE or RoHS almost
certainly to the contrary, but by implementing them NOW it will
hopefully ensure a cleaner and better world for our children's,
children's, children."

Interesting argument. But if WEEE and RoHS provide no short term gains,
just when, and by what mechanism do industry and the environment begin
to benefit? When and how does this metamorphosis take place?

"We have seen the effects of 2000 years of escalating marine pollution
which accelerated at an unprecedented rate since Victorian times and
which has only recently been curbed by legislation on what may be
discharged into the seas and oceans."

2000 years of marine pollution?  Why 2000 years?  I wouldn't have
thought that the total human population back then was sufficiently large
to have such an impact.  I am curious about your source for that one.
Alright, I won't be anal retentive about it. I will give you a little
license to engage in some harmless hyperbole. But is this a backhand
slap at Christianity?

Chuck Dolci

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------